Opinion: IKEA must not punish loyal workers

Things aren’t always what they appear to be, something that is becoming increasingly clear from the Teamsters strike at the Richmond IKEA store.

It appears to be a David vs. Goliath battle, in which unionized workers faithfully toe the union line in a prolonged battle against global corporate giant IKEA. But as the facts surface, it is clear the only thing currently standing between IKEA workers and returning to their jobs is an unprecedented power play by the union leaders at Teamsters Local 213.

Rather than focusing on putting employees back to work, union leaders have decreed there will be no deal unless those employees who crossed the picket line to support their families (as they are legally entitled to do under B.C. law) are terminated from the store.

Nowhere else in the modern, civilized world could this happen, and it may even be a first for Canada. Unions are supposed to be the protectors of jobs and, to my knowledge, no union has previously requested the mass termination of employees for working during a strike or lockout.

The union dictionary labels such workers scabs, the human equivalent of pus-filled sores that refuse to heal (or, in this case, heel). Consequently, the Teamster’s leadership put them on trial (union-style) and expelled them from membership, while encouraging unionized workers on the picket line to harass them.

But subjecting these employees to union discipline and invective isn’t enough for the Teamsters. They want IKEA to punish them too.

Why? Because the union doesn’t want unionized picketers to return to work alongside employees who have been expelled from union membership.

So the current dispute has little to do with finances, benefits or IKEA, and everything to do with internal union politics. Indeed, the real Goliath in this battle is the union, and it is bent on punishing those who worked during the strike and intimidating unionized picketers into staying put.

Decades ago, in a very different era, the union and IKEA signed a collective agreement stating only union members in good standing could remain employed. This is called forced union membership.

Although common in parts of Canada, the rest of the world has deemed it coercive, and universally agreed it is an affront to human rights. Nations that formerly allowed the practice have now ended it; other countries never allowed union leaders to have such a coercive tool in the first place.

The exception is Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed in 2001 with international law in finding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes freedom from government-forced union membership. Unfortunately, for Canada’s workers, this Charter value has yet to trickle down to private-sector workplaces.

In B.C., Premier Christy Clark’s current penchant to find favour with private-sector union bosses (hoping it will prove beneficial to her battles with government unions), virtually ensures this won’t change.

I learned about the IKEA strike through emails responding to my Feb. 7 Calgary Herald column (subsequently published in The Province on March 14) detailing the work disruption between Vancouver-based Teamsters Local 31 and Rocky Mountaineer.

When these groups reached a collective agreement, the Teamsters welcomed the non-union replacement workers into full union membership, and they worked alongside those who had staffed the picket lines.

That is, Teamsters Local 31 did the thing that Teamsters Local 213 refuses to do for IKEA employees.

Harmony between those who worked during a strike and those who picketed can be achieved, and not just at Rocky Mountaineer. B.C. and Canadian labour history is filled with such stories.

If Vancouver-based Teamsters Local 31 allows strikers and replacement workers to work together, why can’t Vancouver-based Teamsters Local 213 do the same?

The IKEA strike is now marking its 10-month anniversary, and, ironically, it no longer has anything to do with employee pay or benefits. It’s all about union politics and the demand to terminate workers who are no longer part of the union brotherhood.

This is beyond disturbing. It is wrong.

The blame for this fiasco now lies solely on the shoulders of union leaders.

Susan Martinuk is a freelance writer and former columnist and editorial writer for The Province.

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.